Case 4123068/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Taylor v George Brown- Prestwick Decorators — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123068/2018
- Decision date
- 6 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was listed for a final hearing on 11 February 2019. The tribunal sought information from Mr M Taylor on 21 December 2018 and again on 9 and 18 January 2019, but he did not provide the information or respond to that correspondence.
On 28 January 2019 the tribunal gave Mr Taylor an opportunity to provide written reasons by 31 January 2019, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. He did neither. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separately determine the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separately determine the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separately determine the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separately determine the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- not actively pursued
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.